Gov. Cox appoints Richards Brandt’s Brian Bolinder to Seventh District Court

SALT LAKE CITY (Nov. 28, 2023) — Utah Gov. Spencer J. Cox has appointed Brian Bolinder to the Seventh District Court, filling the vacancy left by Judge George Harmond’s retirement. Bolinder’s nomination requires confirmation by the Utah Senate.

“I appreciate Brian’s willingness to enter public service and have confidence in his ability to serve the people of the Seventh District Court well,” Gov. Cox said. “I look forward to his confirmation.”

Bolinder is currently a shareholder at Richards Brandt Miller Nelson in Salt Lake City where he specializes in construction, business, real property and tort litigation. He previously served as an associate at Suitter Axland, Salt Lake City, and is past chair of the construction section of the Utah State Bar. He’s also been recognized by Mountain States Super Lawyers and Utah Business Magazine Legal Elite. Since 2016, Bolinder has served as a judge pro tempore in Salt Lake City Justice Court handling small claims matters.

“It is an honor and a privilege to be appointed by Gov. Cox to serve the Seventh District as a District Court Judge. I am humbled and grateful for this opportunity to return to southeastern Utah and serve the citizens of Carbon, Emery, Grand, and San Juan Counties both inside and outside the courthouse,” Bolinder said. “If I am confirmed by the Senate, I will diligently, faithfully, and fairly apply the law in all matters before me while ensuring neutrality and respect is provided to those with whom I interact.”

A native of Ferron, Bolinder has a bachelor’s degree from the University of Utah in Political Science with a minor in Russian, and a juris doctorate from the S.J. Quinney School of Law at the University of Utah.

Click here to read this press release on the Governor’s website.

Barbara Melendez Selected as One of 30 Women to Watch by Utah Business Magazine

June 2018
Barbara Melendez

Richards Brandt Miller and Nelson congratulates Barbara Melendez, Shareholder and Immigration Practice Chair, who has been selected as one of Utah Business 30 Women to Watch. Richards Brandt is honored to be associated with Barbara who is a highly respected and valued member of the firm. Barbara’s dedication, expertise and experience are invaluable assets to the firm and the community. We are proud of her outstanding achievements and contributions to Richards Brandt Miller Nelson and the legal community.

 

 

 

 

IN MEMORIAM

Mark L. McCarty

IN MEMORIAM

Mark L. McCarty 1963-2016

So Mark we’ll miss you,
Sly satirist,
Our proud partner, friend
and anarchist.

-Richards Brandt Miller Nelson

Mark L. McCarty passed away June 20, 2016 due to complications from the HIN1 flu virus.

Mark practiced law at Richards Brandt for 20 years. He was a member of the firm’s Board and Chair of the firm’s Business Practice Section. Mark built RBMN’s practice groups in employment law and the representation of religious groups and organizations. He served on the Board of Trustees for Catholic Community Services. Mark attended law school in Michigan and later worked for the Attorney General’s office. After joining the law firm of Richards Brandt Miller Nelson, Mark made friendships as close as family.

E-Verify Compliance Video Presentation

Kristina Ruedas
September 23, 2014

Common pitfalls to avoid when complying with E-Verify and other laws.

  • Employment Authorization Result – this is the ideal result!
  • SSA Tentative Non-Confirmation – notify employee, employee continues to work during follow-up review, employee can contest the TNC
  • SSA Final Non-Confirmation – termination of employment
  • DHS Verification in Process – Department of Homeland Security may be investigating the employee’s work authorization.

Who can use or access the E-Verify system at your place of business. Limit access to a few employees trained in the I-9 process and E-Verify system.

What is E-Verify according to the USCIS.

Enroll in E-Verify

Utah’s E-Verify RequirementsUtah E-Verify Screen Shot

 

2014 Executive Orders on Immigration Video Presentation

September 2014

President Obama decided to pursue Immigration Reform through Executive Orders. May hear something after November 5, 2014.

  • Work Permits for Parents of DACA
  • Work Permits for Agriculture
  • Increase Employment Related Visas
  • Extension for Foreign Nationals who Graduate from U.S.
  • Residency for Spouses of U.S. Citizens who Entered Illegally

 

Form I-9 Compliance Video Presentation

September 23, 2014

Complying with the rules and regulations under the Form I-9 enforced by USCIS.

In September 2012, 520 criminal work place enforcements and arrests took place. In September 2013, more fines were issued, in one case the government issued a $34m to settle systematic visa fraud and abuse. ICE is enforcing felony criminal charges. The Grand America was fined $2m for immigration violations.

Fines and penalties are expected to increase along with re-audits by ICE.

Correct your measures
Audit your forms
Train your employees
Execute I-9 compliance plan

 

Same Sex Marriage – SCOTUS Watch is On

September 30, 2014

U.S. Supreme Court Justices began private meetings yesterday, September 29, 2014, and the Justices could decide whether to take up the issue of same sex marriage rulings from 4 federal appellate court decisions. Currently, 36 states have laws allowing or prohibiting same sex marriage. Same sex marriages are allowed in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Judges in 14 states have struck down prohibitions to same sex marriage.

State Laws – Wikipedia

Five states (UT, OK, VA, IN, WI) filed Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari requesting the Supreme Court to review federal circuit decisions affirming district court decisions finding same sex marriage prohibitions unconstitutional. In addition to the states, 30 corporations, including Alcoa, Amazon, eBay, General Electric, Intel, NIKE, Pfizer, and Target, have filed requests that the Supreme Court should address same sex marriage laws and recognize same sex marriages nationwide.

Some of the recent decisions that SCOTUS could review, include:

  • Fourth Circuit – Bostic v. Schaefer, Nos. 14-1167, -1169, & -1173, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14298 (4th Cir. 2014), aff’m Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456 (E.D. Va. 2014) (affirming grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs and enjoining enforcement of Virginia Marriage Laws at issue). [Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed Aug. 22, 2014]
  • Seventh Circuit – Baskin v. Bogan, Nos. 14-2386 & -2526, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17294 (7th Cir. 2014) (affirming district courts in Wisconsin and Indiana which determined prohibitions on same sex marriages were unconstitutional). [Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed Sept. 9, 2014]
  • Tenth Circuit – Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014), aff’m Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Utah 2013) (holding that Utah Code Ann. §§ 30-1-2, 30-1-4.1, and Utah Const. art. I, § 29 which defined marriage as between a man and woman and prohibited same sex marriage were unconstitutional). [Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed Aug. 5, 2014]
  • Tenth Circuit – Bishop v. Smith, No. 14-5003 & 14-5006, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13733 (10th Cir. 2014), aff’m Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (N.D. Okla. 2014) (holding same sex couples had standing to attack constitutionality of Okla. Const. art. 2, § 35 prohibition of same sex marriage). [Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed Aug. 6, 2014]

Recently, a Louisiana district court judge bucked the current trend of finding same sex legislation unconstitutional. This decision is Robicheaux v. Caldwell, No. 13-5090, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122528 (D. La. 2014) (granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and holding that Louisiana, under a rational basis standard of review, has a legitimate interest in defining the meaning of marriage through democratic process). This decision echoes the sentiment of the dissenting opinion in the Kitchens v. Herbert decision.

Timeline Banning & Legalizing Same Sex Marriage

The watch is now on; we shall see how SCOTUS decides to address or duck the issue.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Back row (left to right): Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer,Samuel A. Alito, and Elena Kagan. Front row (left to right):Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Avoiding Common Pitfalls of Estate Planning

September 2014

Estate planning is a process—not an event—often wrought with common and routine mistakes, the most common of which include the following:

  • no planning at all;
  • failure to coordinate insurance/retirement assets with an estate plan;
  • adding individuals to bank accounts;
  • transferring family home in joint tenancy with an adult child; and
  • no planning for a disabled/special needs child.

A properly drafted estate plan can help avoid these mistakes.

THE PROBLEM WITH DOING NOTHING

When a person dies without a will, the person is said to have died intestate. The laws of the state where the person lived at the time of death will apply, and those laws determine the liquidation and distribution of the estate. Many people do not have a favorable opinion of, or trust, politicians. Yet, when you do nothing, you are letting your state legislature draft your estate plan. Under intestacy laws your property could ultimately end up in the hands of unwanted beneficiaries or administrators. Would you want an ex-spouse to be responsible for receiving or administering your property? Creating a trust can solve this problem.

FAILURE TO COORDINATE INSURANCE/RETIREMENT ASSETS WITH AN ESTATE PLAN

A common misconception is that a will controls the distribution of assets upon death. However, a will only governs probate assets (i.e., assets not controlled by trusts, joint tenancy, and/or beneficiary designations.) Today, many assets get transferred without consideration of a will. For example, joint tenancy assets pass to the surviving joint tenant and life insurance, annuities, and IRAs/401(k)s are controlled by beneficiary designations. These assets, upon death of the owner, pass to the named beneficiary regardless of the provisions outlined in a will. So, if an individual designates only one child as a beneficiary in a life insurance policy, but prepares a will naming all children as equal beneficiaries, the beneficiary designation in the insurance policy trumps the directions in the will, potentially creating problems the deceased never intended, and which could have been avoided by coordinating insurance/retirement assets with an estate plan.

ADDING INDIVIDUALS TO BANK ACCOUNTS

Adding a person to a bank account subjects the account to that person’s creditors. For example, when a parent adds a child to his/her checking account in order to allow the child to manage the bills and expenses, the child becomes a co-owner of the account, and that account becomes subject to the child’s creditors. Creating a revocable trust can protect assets while still allowing another person to pay your bills.

TRANSFERRING THE FAMILY HOME IN JOINT TENANCY WITH AN ADULT CHILD

A parent conveying title of their home to an adult child as joint tenants to avoid probate court is a routine mistake for several reasons. (1) This transfer constitutes a taxable gift under IRS regulations. (2) The home becomes subject to the child’s creditors who can then potentially force the sale of the home. (3) The sale of the home results in potential capital gains tax to the child. A revocable trust can accomplish transfer of real property without the ensuing problems.

FAILURE TO PLAN FOR A DISABLED CHILD

If you have a disabled or special needs child, you should consider leaving the child’s inheritance in a specially drafted trust to protect the child while keeping the child eligible for public assistance. An inheritance could cause forfeiture of public assistance benefits to a special needs child. Through a supplemental needs trust a child’s inheritance can be managed by a selected family member without sacrificing Medicaid or SSI benefits.

CONCLUSION

Proper planning creates peace of mind, streamlines administration, and preserves your property for your family and future generations. With attention and regular checkups we are able to catch the mistakes described above (and more) and make the necessary changes to avoid unnecessary problems and costs.

Utah’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Kitchens v. Herbert – Same Sex Marriage

September 2014

In legal circles as in life, be careful what you wish for. The news is out that Utah has filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the same sex marriage case. Utah is requesting the United States Supreme Court to review the 10th Circuit’s ruling upholding the Utah district court’s decision that the Amendment 3 unconstitutional.

As you may know, Utah’s Amendment 3, Article I, Section 29 on [Marriage.] reads (1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage 070-416 or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

In a surprising move to some, the plaintiffs in Utah’s same sex marriage case indicated that they intend to join in Utah’s request to have the 10th Circuit’s ruling reviewed. The Salt Lake Tribune reporter accurately noted: “victors rarely ask for a rematch.” The pundits have started weighing in on the chances of the United States Supreme Court accepting the case for discretionary review.

In a nutshell, the plaintiffs’ decision to join rather than oppose Utah’s petition should give the State and those who oppose same-sex marriage pause for thought. The reason that the plaintiffs have decided to join in the State’s request is that Amendment 3 and the arguments that Utah is advancing in its support represent the best case – in the plaintiffs’ view – to have the United States Supreme Court uphold the unconstitutionality of same sex marriage laws. As the articles discuss, other states and other federal circuits have similar challenges in the pipeline. For proponents of same sex marriage, Amendment 3 is one of the, if not the, least defensible laws percolating up through the federal circuits. The plaintiffs want to argue Amendment 3 is unconstitutional rather than some other state’s statute because it is an easier argument to make.

Appellate court decisions are an effective means to achieve favorable laws in many areas of the law and in industry and commerce. Savvy parties and legal advocates, however, carefully choose which cases to appeal and which to accept in defeat. Perhaps Utah will be successful, and as the pundits note, it is likely that Utah’s petition will be joined with another state or states similar to petition, meaning that the United States will be considering other same 070-460 sex marriage bans in conjunction with Amendment 3. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs’ decision to join Utah’s petition is a telling sign as to how Amendment 3 compares to other states’ laws.

Additional Articles:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58165963-78/court-marriage-state-utah.html.csp

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/58263347-90/utah-marriage-state-court.html.csp

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/08/same-sex-couples-to-support-court-review-on-marriage/.

Copyright © 2021-2024 by Richards Brandt. All rights reserved. Attorneys located in Salt Lake City, Utah